RPGHQ stands in solidarity with NexusMods on the topic of offensive content

[jcd]

Show me a country where you won't have a problem approving something like this.

India.

If you are ready to swim and shit in the water, which you will then drink, then India is a good option for life (no).

You will never taste Hitler ice cream.

[Goblin_Hammer]

It's not legally binding, though.
I can dig up and show you American courts declaring American EULAs legally invalid or unenforceable.
It's the court that is the actor, the EULA is nothing but the company's demands. And those demands are often beyond what the law allows.

But what about ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg, where the court held the EULA was an enforceable contract?

[jcd]

Japan too. Have you seen Ichigo's bankai and fullbring from Bleach? That's some meme material

Naruto had one too. For clarity, he is NOT an Aryan Brotherhood member.

[ANONYMOUS_FRI3ND]

India.

If you are ready to swim and shit in the water, which you will then drink, then India is a good option for life (no).

You will never taste Hitler ice cream.

But I tasted ice cream "Poor Jew", "Obama" and "Ukrainian" (хохол - is an offensive name for a Ukrainian, I don't know how to translate it into English).



I even tasted "American" and "Big Brother" ice cream.

[The_Mask]

That Bleach stuff was pretty controversial at the time. And that's how I learned it was also a religious symbol.

Pretty interesting how imagery is used for both propaganda and mass manipulation.

[twig]

Those are all derived works, which do not qualify for copyright as they do not hold the IP of the content being modified.

I see this falsehood being repeated. Derivative works can have their own license terms (as long as they fall under copyright). Fair use applies, and even works that violate others' terms can have their own licensing terms.

[Mondain]

Those are all derived works, which do not qualify for copyright as they do not hold the IP of the content being modified.

I see this falsehood being repeated. Derivative works can have their own license terms (as long as they fall under copyright). Fair use applies, and even works that violate others' terms can have their own licensing terms.

Not unauthorized derivative works.

[Nammu Archag]

Those are all derived works, which do not qualify for copyright as they do not hold the IP of the content being modified.

I see this falsehood being repeated. Derivative works can have their own license terms (as long as they fall under copyright). Fair use applies, and even works that violate others' terms can have their own licensing terms.

Fair use in most cases does not apply to modding. It is only tolerated by the grace of the owner of the IP. https://kblroche.com/thinking-before-mo ... 's%20scope. If a rights-owner stated no modifications whatsoever to their work then they can freely DMCA anyone who does not comply.

It is certainly possible but unlikely that a mod (whether free, only shared with your friends, or a parody) may be found to be a fair use under the so-named Fair Use Doctrine. Fair Use is used to argue that certain infringement is OK because it is, say, educational, satirical, or non-commercial. A mod, free or not, would still involve a modder’s use of copyrighted material to create a derivative work, and would most likely be outside of Fair Use’s scope.

Fair use just isn't a real justification if the developer decides to not tolerate the modification of its work. You may be able to take it to court and use that as a defense, but it completely depends upon the decision of that specific court itself, which would unlikely be in the defendant's favor given that most big games have pretty well-defined legal clauses. Essentially, there is no guarantee that fair use would work, as it is a largely vague and subjective metric in the first place. It mainly applies to factual content like news articles or general information, fictional works are typically less protected. https://cdas.com/fair-use-in-gaming-con ... -creators/

Doesn't help either that the reality is most people can't even afford to get to that point in the first place.

[twig]

Not unauthorized derivative works.

You're right, and I'm wrong. According to wikipedia,

Copyright ownership in a derivative work attaches only if the derivative work is lawful, because of a license or other "authorization." The U.S. Copyright Office says in its circular on derivative works:

In any case where a copyrighted work is used without the permission of the copyright owner, copyright protection will not extend to any part of the work in which such material has been used unlawfully.

[Rand]

It's not legally binding, though.
I can dig up and show you American courts declaring American EULAs legally invalid or unenforceable.
It's the court that is the actor, the EULA is nothing but the company's demands. And those demands are often beyond what the law allows.

But what about ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg, where the court held the EULA was an enforceable contract?

I hope you're shitposting.

[Lord of Riva]

Not unauthorized derivative works.

I was misinformed as well

appreciated,